VIKRAMAJIT SEN ( 1 ) THIS case exemplifies the ingenuity of the human mind. Although some disputes in the family of the jaiswals appear to have occurred which had resulted in proceedings being initiated under the Companies Act, by pankaj Jaiswal against his father and the siblings, those proceedings are of little relevance to the respondent s claim that he had been employed by the jaiswal Art Press Private Limited, the Writ Petitioner herein. Jaiswal Art Press Private Limited is an incorporated Company of which Shri Hansraj Jaiswal, petitioner No. 2, is the Managing Director. He has deposed as the Management s Witness. The claim of the workman was that after working as a driver with the petitioner No. 1 for six years on a monthly salary of rs. 1350/-, his services were abruptly terminated. He remained unemployed, and eked out a living on the mercy and largesse of the working-members of his family including his brother. He had also sought to meet his family s needs by assisting his father in his tailoring business. ( 2 ) THE defence of the writ Petitioner/management, from a perusal of its written Statement before the conciliation Officer, Karampura, New Delhi, in essence is twofold. Firstly, that the Respondent workman Madan pal is not a workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Dispute Act and secondly that he was never employed with the Petitioner/management. Keeping in view the nature of the evidence led before the Labour court it is indeed significant that in the written statement it has not been stated that the workman was, in fact, employed as a driver in Pankaj Trading Company, which allegedly is owned by the son of Hansraj Jaiswal, namely Pankaj Jaiswal. In the circumstances of the case, the Petitioner could have easily mentioned this fact in the written Statement and not taken the workman by surprise by mentioning these alleged facts in his deposition, for the first time. It is indeed difficult to appreciate that this line of evidence was permitted by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court since it is trite to state that evidence must be predicated on and conform strictly to pleadings. ( 3 ) BE that as it may, the Labour Court has unequivocally found that the relationship of an employer and employee between the workman, Shri Madan Pal and M/s jaiswal Art Press Private Limited exists. ( 3 ) BE that as it may, the Labour Court has unequivocally found that the relationship of an employer and employee between the workman, Shri Madan Pal and M/s jaiswal Art Press Private Limited exists. In writ proceedings it would be inappropriate for the High Court to differ from these findings of facts; that would be possible in the rarest of cases where the finding is totally perverse. In the present petition, having considered all the aspects of the case, I am of the opinion that this conclusion of the Labour Court is fully correct. The hesitancy to state in the pleadings itself on behalf of the Petitioner that the Respondent was a workman of the son of Petitioner No. 2 is manifestly evident. Had such an averment been dealt with, it may well have transferred the liability to the son, and this would obviously serve no useful purpose for the Jaiswal family, even if it is assumed that family disputes had actually arisen. I may in also briefly refer to the Compromise which was effected in the Company Proceedings before this Court. The compromise was recorded before the Division Bench in company Appeal No. 11/199 5/09/1997, i. e. after the passing of the impugned Award dated 29. 5. 1997. It would be reasonably to be expected for the Petitioner to have recorded in the compromise application that the liability under the impugned Award should be assumed by his son, namely Pankaj Jaiswal. This exposes the falsity of writ petition. Salary vouchers have been duly proved by the respondent workman pertaining to the petitioner Company. ( 4 ) IN the impugned Award the workman has been granted reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages. I find no error in the impugned Award. The Petition is dismissed with costs of rs. 300/ -.